Wow. Succinct and unflinching Op-Ed by an Emory psychologist on Obama.

[pgodbold]

"He can't seem to muster the passion to fight for any of what he believes in"

Could We Have Predicted What Happened Last Tuesday?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/could-we-have-predicted-w_b_780250.html

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Kind of made me want to cry.

If it seemed so obvious to the author in Dec 2009, why didn't anyone in the administration have an inkling?

[angstlessk]

18. I think he thought he had to DO, rather than COMMUNICATE, and have others DO

His job is really communicator in chief..as bush's was propagander in chief

[shireen]

44. +1

:(

[nofurylike]

2. what a questionable conclusion, since we have all seen how well

he CAN fight, and DOES "muster the passion."

might it be that people aren't willing to wonder WHY in a given case he CHOOSES NOT to?

so many people just decide he is wrong - and wronger, faster, than most (the accusing group's own pathology) - whenever he doesn't do what they themselves BELIEVE they would do. old story, grown more fierce. armchair-presidenting at its ugliest.

[TheWraith]

4. Exactly. People apparently think being president is like being a wizard.

That you can get what you want just by the sheer force of will of BELIEVING hard enough. Barack Obama is not Peter Pan.

[villager]

5. No... but it'd nice if it was like being.... President, when a Democrat is in the office

n/t

[JuniperLea]

9. Please define.... n/t

[nofurylike]

6. yes! their own personal wizard, at that! thank you, TheWraith. nt

[paulkienitz]

135. I'm not asking him to fly

... but when the pirates attack, he should at least pick up the damn sword.

[WinkyDink]

30. What was one fight?

[nofurylike]

46. pure diversion. for those who do not acknowledge ANY of the

accomplishments fought for, to success, by this administration, my trying to reason would only be a waste.

[polichick]

43. He only fights when he is campaigning - not when he's supposed to lead. nt

[nofurylike]

47. pure diversion. for those who do not acknowledge ANY of the

accomplishments fought for, to success, by this administration, my trying to reason would only be a waste.

[Joe Fields]

177. you took the words right out of my mouth.

Exactly. He squandered a majority in both houses of congress; a majority we likely will not see again in my lifetime.

[highprincipleswork]

45. Give an example

I'd like to see one example where h can fight and does muster the passion, for anything long and sustained and that results in actual popular policy decisions.

As the author says, pretty speeches, and then jetting off to the next pie in the sky when you die.

[nofurylike]

48. pure diversion. for those who do not acknowledge ANY of the

accomplishments fought for, to success, by this administration, my trying to reason would only be a waste.

[tavalon]

73. Wow, how convenient for you

Just keep cutting and pasting that one. No debate but no trouble, either.

[donco6]

90. Well, it's a step up from the one-word "Unrec" that the others are dropping all over. n/t

[Bluebear]

182. +

[hfojvt]

111. is there really nothing you believe he has fought for?

What would it take to convince you that he fought? Seems to me that he fought for a number of things, from his stimulus bill to health care reform. You are apparently just going to take the position that he either never fought hard enough or he never fought for the right things. Does he have to fight for the things he believes in, or the things you believe in? How hard does he have to fight? Does he have to pray hard enough to make water run uphill?

[nofurylike]

128. "fight for the things he believes in, or the things you believe in? "

well said, hfojvt. and thank you for trying. if someone sees absolutely nothing accomlished by this adminstration, then they have already chosen to wear blinders to reality, so i've learned not to try, that trying just invites more venom.
i very much appreciate what you wrote though.


peace and solidarity!

[nofurylike]

129. as if anything i or anyone else says will make any difference to

those who have already closed their minds to any possibility of this adminsitration's having ever accomplished a single thing. a. single. thing.

if that is how they perceive it, they are out of touch with reality already, and usually only turn vicious if confronted with anything that might penetrate the delusion.

it is not about convenient. it is about not inviting sure vitriol.

thanks!

[Bugenhagen]

134. pure repetition. cut and paste.

[tavalon]

72. I am willing to wonder that exact thing

and what comes to me in the dark nights does not comfort me. I hear Nader's voice and I wonder if he wasn't just a few years too early on his assessment. I wonder if the differences between Democrats and Republicans don't amount to style more than outcome. I watched a Congress and an administration that was the majority capitulate over and over. It does make me wonder. Corporaticans, anyone?

[AnArmyVeteran]

108. Nader has been the most eloquent spokesman against corporate control of our country.

He was right in the 90s and he is right today. But how do you get people to listen and act in their own interests? We are losing our country and Nader has been the canary in a cave all his life. By the time people wake up it's going to be too late.

[Hawkowl]

98. FIGHT?!?!

Name one example of fighting! Just one effin example. I've followed this guy since the mid 90's in "fighting" is just not in his vocabulary. He has no moral or ethical code that can't easily be compromised, i.e; bought or sold, for whatever is the path of least resistance.

[sasha031]

3. Wow is right

I now change the channel when Obama speaks, that article nails it on the head.
Obama would have been happier staying with his teaching position. I hope I don't get flamed for saying this, but it's something I have felt for a long time.

[whathehell]

14. I don't change the channel...but

I agree that he seems to lack passion.

It makes me wonder why he chose to run for president at all.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. No flames from me and I also change the channel, something I thought I wouldn't have too do ever

again, once gwdubya was gone.

[countrydad58]

140. I know.

Not only the mealy mouth drivel he says, but the uh.. uh... uh. after every word is maddening!

[polichick]

42. I either change the channel or hold my breath...

...because I know it's only a matter of minutes before he suggests caving to a bunch of sociopaths.

I wish the president would agree to meet with this psychologist - could make a huge difference in his life, and ours.

[JuniperLea]

7. Passion does not equal running around like your hair is on fire...

It's as if people are trying to goad Obama into screaming and crying like the Great Weepy Orange Boner, so they can chide him for being soft and squishy.

I'm really tired of the ridiculousness of it all.

[mike_c]

35. yup, it's n-dimensional chess and us mortals...

...will never understand how Obama actually has the forces of evil exactly where he wants them. Oh wait. In Congress?

[JuniperLea]

36. That really has nothing to do with what I said...

...

[mike_c]

40. "providing progressive leadership" is not the same as...

..."running around like his hair is on fire" then. I don't accept the implication that he has a plan, that he'll pull it out of his sleeve at the last minute and save the day. I think he has utterly lost the day. Unless he turns things around and begins leading a charge to the left, the Obama presidency is now beginning it's footnote days.

He wasn't the one, Neo.

[stevenleser]

147. It's easier to talk about chess than to make a substantive policy argument...

... I thought only right wingers did stuff like that, but, alas...

[xultar]

87. Rofl!

[donco6]

91. LOL! Yeah, darn it, how'd they get THERE? Sh*t. n/t

[stevenleser]

146. We should put on ignore anyone who says anything about chess instead of making an argument. n/t

[treestar]

38. Or chastise him for being out of control or angry

I wonder if Free Republic has any more Obama bashing than DU. Bet they have a little less of it.

[JuniperLea]

41. Spot on...

Smack him around until he fights back, then chastise him for being unhinged.

[tavalon]

75. I'm sorry that you see legitimate discussion and yes, criticism when warranted

as bashing.

[grahamhgreen]

59. If he would simply articulate, then stand by his principals, so far he's Bush lite.

[tavalon]

74. Think FDR, think Truman. Strong, passionate leaders both.

Obama has the ability. He doesn't use it. Why?

[Mimosa]

104. 'Aversion to conflict'

I recognised it in Obama last year. This is common for kids raised in families (I was largely grandparent raised myself) where there have been divorces and the grandparents take over the a lot of the responsible parenting. It seems Stanley Dunham, the grandfather, may have been at least a heavy drinker, if not an alcoholic. Obama's grandmother was the 'matriarch' the strong one in the family. There may have been conflicts between Obama's mother and his grandparents at times. As a youngster, clever Obama became a 'pleaser' instead of a rebel.

Young Bill Clinton (another kid from a broken family) was a bit 'stronger'. Possibly because he didn't have the additional complication of being a mixed race child.


I think Michelle is actually the source of Barack Obama's strength and stability.

None of us know the inside government corporate/banking intimidation which made Obama cave on health care. He caved.

[Hannah Bell]

114. where do you get the idea dunham was a drinker?

[Mimosa]

115. From Barack Obama's poem about 'Pop' his grandfather who 'poured another Seagrams'

Here's one reference which includes the words to Obama's poem:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MnhodV2aADoC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=stanley+dunham+drinking&source=bl&ots=CwTsOyteQ7&sig=Z5Ig144fbWK8WDR0v3LNbWd29Lg&hl=en&ei=r6fZTKrGAsL-8Aa54-z3CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=stanley%20dunham%20drinking&f=false


Adult children of alkies are very good at detecting other children of alkies. ;)

Hannah, here's the whole poem by Barack Obama. He is very revealing and sincere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/politics/18poems.html

[countrydad58]

Wasn't Grampy

a big Repub too?

[CanSocDem]

116. That is certainly...

...the glaring point in the good doctors analysis.

"Aversion to conflict..." pretty much explains it all. I kept waiting to see how he would respond when his grand ambitions had their first meeting with "...the inside government corporate/banking intimidation...". He lost a lot of his enthusiasm when he found out he wasn't the new messiah.

Good profiling and the addition of Clinton to the equation. These guys really are crowd pleasers and inspiring speakers and their ability to win elections is confirmed. Is that all there is...??? The article offered up a more progressive direction. I hope Mr. Obama reads it.

.

[Mimosa]

117. More on 'Gramps' frequenting of bars from Obama's own description

From the Dreams from my Father book:

I was intrigued by old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes. The visits to his house always left me feeling vaguely uncomfortable, though, as if I were witnessing some complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men, a transaction I couldn't fully understand. The same thing I felt whenever Gramps took me downtown to one of his favorite bars, in Honolulu's red-light district.

[AnArmyVeteran]

106. A 'passion meter' would register zero with Obama.

From everything I've seen there is no evidence he will ever fight for what is right. I'm wondering if he has ever engaged in any confrontation during his entire life. Can anyone cite just one example of Obama fighting or confronting anyone?

[jgraz]

8. "allergy to leadership"

Fucking painful to read, but so true.

[laughingliberal]

60. That was the line that jumped out at me, too. nt

[HughMoran]

10. I've heard that if you criticize a person enough, they will change their fundamental personality

Perhaps the psychologist has an opinion of that too?

[dgibby]

11. Truly prescient.

Great article. Thanks for posting.

K&R!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emulatorloo]

13. And what was this psychologist's diagnosis of Terry Shiavo? c'mon this shit is getting ridiculous.

I'm embarrassed for the Huffington Post.

[WinkyDink]

26. I didn't think there was much psycho-analysis. Seemed like a normal analysis based on observation.

[XemaSab]

143. The psychology in the article

was describing the mood of the American people based on polls.

[Lance_Boyle]

79. Terry Shiavo? She mustered more passion and fight in a PVS than Obama

has in the White House.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. Well you do know that Obama voted along with Frist on Schaivo?

That is correct. When Bush flew back to intervene, Obama was right there voting on the side of the Republicans to intervene in that family matter. Obama took the video diagnosis as worthy evidence in that case.
Odd that you would bring up that case, considering Obama was on the side of the GOP in that one, and upheld the video diagnosis method as sound by casting his vote with Dr Frist.

[chill_wind]

123. Ugh!

I didn't know that, either. n/t

[rgbecker]

124. You're wrong on that issue. 2005, Obama not in congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Sunday_Compromise

WTF?

[Bluenorthwest]

127. Sorry, he most certainly was present in March 2005 and he voted

exactly as I said. Here is from the Baptist Press website, just special for you:
CLEVELAND (BP)--Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said during a debate Feb. 26 that he regrets his 2005 vote allowing Congress to get involved in the case involving Terri Schiavo, the severely disabled woman from Florida who died of starvation and dehydration after her feeding tube was pulled.

Obama made the comments during a Democratic debate with Hillary Clinton. Both were asked if there were any words or votes they'd "like to take back." Clinton cited her vote authorizing the war in Iraq; Obama, his Schiavo vote.
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=27500

So the 'WTF' goes right back to you, you who have the Google. You should apologize. I mean, what the fuck, man? I am right and you are wrong and you do not get to rewrite history. Facts are facts.

[rgbecker]

132. I apologize, Obama was in Senate in 2005....Did not vote with Frist.

Your post indicated that Obama was somehow in favor of voting for intrusion of Feds into Schiavo case.
In fact it was done by 3 senators, not including Obama, who took advantage of the fact the Senate hadn't been
adjourned over the Palm Sunday weekend. Obama stated that he was not in favor of the vote and regretted not
returning to stop the three from voting the US supreme court should have some say in the case.
I'll post this link again and hope that you would read it to see if Obama stood with Frist in supporting the
"Unanimous decisison". In reading your link, I see Obama was not supportive of the Fed intrusion, which seems to
be the opposite of what your post states. I'll copy your post here also to remind you.

YOUR POST:

Well you do know that Obama voted along with Frist on Schaivo?
That is correct. When Bush flew back to intervene, Obama was right there voting on the side of the Republicans to intervene in that family matter. Obama took the video diagnosis as worthy evidence in that case.
Odd that you would bring up that case, considering Obama was on the side of the GOP in that one, and upheld the video diagnosis method as sound by casting his vote with Dr Frist.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Sunday_Compromise

[northoftheborder]

15. Excellent analysis of the O. presidency from A to Z.

[Liberal Veteran]

17. Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

[Raksha]

65. One of my favorite Yeats poems, and still as applicable as it ever was...

to my great disappointment.

[Tatiana]

19. How can one argue that this isn't true?

What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

I can't believe the author wrote this almost a year ago. It sounds completely apropos for today.

[mike_c]

33. that's the most important point, I think-- it IS apropos of today, and the author called it then....

While many were criticizing the triangulation, the "bipartisanship," and the failure to lead in a progressive direction, many defenders of the administration were calling Obama a chess master, and saying "just wait until he reveals his true Jedi nature" or some such.

So might the lack of effective response the author notes today presage continuance of Obama's lack of vision and leadership tomorrow? That's what I wondered after reading the article.

[polichick]

39. It would help a lot if the president were actually working with a psychologist...

...who could help with his aversion to conflict - otherwise, he'll probably never really lead.

"He just can't tolerate conflict, and the result is that he refuses to lead."

[tavalon]

76. Can't tolerate conflict? Candidate Obama could and did

My question is one of, what has changed? If he never exhibited the passion, he would never have built the following he did. An army, waiting to this day, for it's marching orders. Candidate Obama got replaced by President Obama. What changed?

[polichick]

84. Well, it seems he doesn't mind conflict with Dems (Hillary, liberals)...

...but he can't tolerate it with his actual enemies - the people who hate his guts.

[glinda]

100. No one takes it seriously when I say I want Dean to go in and drug test him. I have

noticed a sort of calming and distancing attitude from some of these people. How do we know they are not getting barbiturates or anything thrown into their systems by opposition operatives in the Government.
Seriously. I am not unfamiliar with drug use. Appears the same doctor is still there and look how stupid Bush was. Of course, he was stupid to begin with.
I would like it ruled out from the equation in regards to "contradicting messages' anyways.

[Mimosa]

105. Obama has the same physician as Bush? That's scary. n/t

[glinda]

118. Yes. The same physician has been there for some time I had read. Pentagon Doctor?

[XemaSab]

144. I recall that during the campaign

he was called "no drama Obama" because he would let the opposition freak out while he sat there cool as a cucumber.

I think a lot of people voted for him because of that.

Unfortunately, it only works in a zero-sum game like an election. When governing, it makes you look detached.

[Greyhound]

54. One cannot underestimate the power of delusion. n/t

[stevenleser]

148. You mean besides the fact that she has not examined Obama and most Psychiatrists will not do that?

As it is unethical to make diagnoses without examining someone...

[Tatiana]

168. Did you read the piece? The author is not making any medical diagnosis.

He is voicing his political opinion and assessment of the President, which seems to be on the money, IMO.

[SeattleGirl]

20. So armchair psychological analyses are cool now?

Sheesh.

[WinkyDink]

27. Did you read it?

[stevenleser]

150. You want us to read a Psych analysis by someone who has not examined the patient?

Examining public personas might be enough to diagnose certain overt personality disorders like severe megalomania, but subtle personality traits are hard to do from hundreds or thousands of miles away and television appearances.

[muriel_volestrangler]

161. So you've assumed it's a psych analysis without reading it?

Well, it isn't. So now you know, and you can read it.

[kath]

165. Absolutely CLASSIC DU going on here -- people read the title, then start spouting off

on what they *think* the post is going to say, without reading either the rest of the OP or the article linked therein.
Either that, or the level of reading comprehension is about that of a 5th or 6th grader.

[stevenleser]

169. NO thanks. It's presented as somehow relevant that she is a psychiatrist. Its a false appeal to

authority where that authority cannot be brought to bear.

[WinkyDink]

174. At least get the "psychologist" part right.

[stevenleser]

178. Yeah, like that somehow matters in what we are talking about... n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

21. K&R Very clearly stated, and so right.

I truly like and admire and support President Obama and hope he succeeds of course, but this is the truth and should be considered very seriously. I wish the President would see it. I think it would really help him understand how to do a lot better.

[prolesunited]

29. You should e-mail it to him

I'm sure he would appreciate such insight from a person whom he has never met. I'm sure he'll just gravitate toward such advice.

[polichick]

32. Actually, emailing it is a good idea - Obama is an intelligent man; he may...

...see the truth in it.

Lord knows, it's critical that he gets over his aversion to conflict asap!

[madrchsod]

22. politician.....

"...i support the left

though i`m leaning to the right

but i`m just not there when it comes to a fight..."

[boppers]

23. Succinct?

Really?

:rofl:

[polichick]

24. Heartbreakingly accurate - both pieces...

I've said for a long time that President Obama could use a good psychologist and I still think it would help him and the country tremendously.

"He just can't tolerate conflict, and the result is that he refuses to lead." - This, he needs to get over asap!

[prolesunited]

25. Wow, I would think he would want to have at least one session

with him before making such a far-reaching conclusion.

[WinkyDink]

28. How, exactly, is the "conclusion" "far-reaching"?

[stevenleser]

151. Bingo! N/T

[mike_c]

31. excellent, and worth reiterating that it was spot on a year ago....

As the author notes, this isn't a 20-20 post-mortem. It's a prescient call to arms a year before the 2010 election that turned out to be spot on in just about every respect. Folks who don't like what they read here can bury their heads in the sand, but it was utterly correct. That alone deserves some respect by anyone who actually values the truth rather than the spin.

[SidDithers]

34. Unrec...nt

Sid

[countrydad58]

142. Of course you do.

[treestar]

37. Is this one of those things that is going to become true by sheer force of

repetition?

Because God, it's stupid.

[hayu_lol]

53. Very light research during the primaries...

reflected exactly what this article/op-ed is saying. BUT, he was, to many, the 2nd coming and no counterarguments were allowed on any dem site including this one.

Sad.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

94. There were plenty of counter-arguments.

I supported Obama but was fully aware of what others felt were his shortcomings. Sadly, they were right and I was wra-wra.

[stevenleser]

152. I think calling it stupid is too generous.

But as you are a generous person, I will agree.

[donheld]

49. My question is: Why did he have no trouble at all fighting Hillary, but now he can't

seem to fight the weakest republican? I don't get it.

[QC]

51. Hillary's a Democrat. n/t

[laughingliberal]

61. +1000 nt

[Bluebear]

69. ---

:spray:

[tavalon]

78. Why does that make it different?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lorien]

68. Either that or he's hopelessly obtuse

somehow I don't think he's anywhere near as stupid as he's pretending to be.

[tavalon]

80. Oh, he's not stupid. He's one of the smartest Presidents we've ever had

Carter was another. But, perhaps, just like Carter, he isn't cut out for this job.

[Lorien]

158. If he is actually working for the other team than yeah, he's brilliant

otherwise I must disagree; he's made all of the worst "mistakes" a so called Democrat could possibly make to damage both the party and the platform.

[chill_wind]

66. Ain't that strange?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. "The Black Tax." Look it up!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=black%20tax

[CTLawGuy]

82. that doesn't exist and/or doesn't apply to Obama

:crazy:

[Mimosa]

107. 'The Black Tax' DOES EXIST.

And a lot of the unthinking idiotic opposition to Obama is race-based.

[CTLawGuy]

173. oh I know

but the Obama haters generally get bent out of shape when you bring it up.

[Greyhound]

52. How did we get here?

We have seen the same pattern of pretty speeches followed by empty exhortations on issue after issue. The president has, on more than one occasion, gone to Wall Street or called in its titans (who have often just ignored him and failed to show up) to exhort them to be nice to the people they're foreclosing at record rates, yet he has done virtually nothing for those people. His key program for preventing foreclosures is helping 4 percent of those "lucky" enough to get into it, not the 75 percent he promised, and many of the others are having their homes auctioned out from right under them because of some provisions in the fine print. One in four homeowners is under water and one in six is in danger of foreclosure. Why we're giving money to banks instead of two-year loans -- using the model of student loans -- to homeowners to pay their mortgages (on which they don't have to pay interest or principal for two years, while requiring their banks to renegotiate their interest rates in return for saving the banks from "toxic assets") is something the average person doesn't understand. And frankly, I don't understand it, either. I thought I voted Democratic in the last election.

Two right wings of the one American Party.
:kick: & R

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

58. Politician. n/t

[BlueIris]

63. Yep; nails it.

I don't think he's a Trojan Horse, though. Something different.

[whatchamacallit]

95. Phase one, the demolition ball (bush)

phase two...

[laughingliberal]

62. K & R nt

[Raksha]

64. K & R - just posted this to my Facebook page,

for whatever good that will do. What is so amazing about this article is that the main part of it was written almost a year ago, and yet he absolutely nailed it.

[tavalon]

81. There were many of us who were nailing it a year ago

We were told we weren't giving Obama enough of a chance.

[Lorien]

67. Ugh:

"he expressed his regret that he and his team were so busy spending money to plug the economic dike that they gave the misimpression that they believed in government spending, when at heart he doesn't really like government all that much, either. In the same interview, when asked about the perception that he's anti-business, he made clear that some regulations are necessary, but they should be made in "collaboration" with the industries that need to be regulated -- a position strongly articulated by his predecessor, who most of us believed we had voted against -- and then proceeded to offer the two most egregious examples he could find, particularly with the swing voters who swung strongly against him and his party this year, namely bankers and health insurance executives. (You can't make this stuff up.) It's a little hard to imagine Franklin Roosevelt speaking of the robber barons of his era in quite such collegial terms. "

Regulations should be made IN COLLABORATION with the industries that need to be regulated. Yeah, that'll save our Nation and economy. :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

70. this psychological crap is crap, could we just look at what pols do & refrain

from ascribing it to psychological motives?

[Bluebear]

71. Obama "would make a great Queen"

Like most Americans I talk to, when I see the president on television, I now change the channel the same way I did with Bush. With Bush, I couldn't stand his speeches because I knew he meant what he said. I knew he was going to follow through with one ignorant, dangerous, or misguided policy after another. With Obama, I can't stand them because I realize he doesn't mean what he says -- or if he does, he just doesn't have the fire in his belly to follow through. He can't seem to muster the passion to fight for any of what he believes in, whatever that is. He'd make a great queen -- his ceremonial addresses are magnificent -- but he prefers to fly Air Force One at 60,000 feet and "stay above the fray."

:)

[Denzil_DC]

77. Unrec. No serious professional analyst would pretend

that it's possible to produce any diagnosis remotely. This is just another pathetic excuse for shoring up preconceptions and backseat driving.

[GoCubsGo]

86. Thank you.

I wish I had back the time it took to read that pile of hooey.

[HuckleB]

113. +1,000,000,000,000 ... 000 !!!!

[Jakes Progress]

121. Besides. It seems so true that this hurts.

So we have to attack it as unprofessional. Here on DU we have delved into the satanic motivations of cheney, torn Hillary's psyche apart, all but filled the psychologist's folder on rush. But we can't do that with the dreamy one.

Hey. I agree he's dreamy. But you would have to go a long way to find a better interpretation of the president's actions and inactions than the OP. You got a better idea why he behaves the way he does?

[Bluebear]

181. Thank you.

[CTLawGuy]

83. Reminds me of Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo by closed circuit TV

NT

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. Except this is not a diagnosis at all. It's irrelevant that the author is a psychologist

just as it's irrelevant he's a neuroscientist.

The article, which I think you can't have read if you think it's like Frist diagnosing by TV, is a long general political commentary (most of which was written last December, but holds up pretty well). You don't have to be a psychologist to say a public figure "can't seem to muster the passion to fight for any of what he believes in, whatever that is". We can all put forward an opinion like that, and that includes people whose job is 'psychologist'.

[callous taoboy]

101. +1. This teacher is profoundly disappointed in the lack of passion Obama has shown for education.

[Toucano]

110. I almost concluded the same thing as you...then I read the article.

The OP needlessly put the author's profession in the title...

It's not a diagnosis and has nothing to do with Obama's psyche.

[CTLawGuy]

172. ah

then I care even less about what he has to say.

[gulliver]

88. He seems to like the word "seem."

He seems like an idiot who can't seem to organize a straightforward exposition of the way things are so he has to tell us how they seem.

[LWolf]

89. He nailed it. Hard.

Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people to the political process. It isn't hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry). In fact, the president's leadership style, combined with the Democratic Congress's penchant for making its sausage in public and producing new and usually more tasteless recipes every day, has had a very high toll far from the left: smack in the center of the political spectrum.

What's costing the president and courting danger for Democrats in 2010 isn't a question of left or right, because the president has accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not losing both.

What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

The problem is not that his record is being distorted. It's that all three have more than a grain of truth. And I say this not as one of those pesky "leftists." I say this as someone who has spent much of the last three years studying what moves voters in the middle, the Undecideds who will hear whichever side speaks to them with moral clarity.

[dbt]

92. Ouch! K & R

To echo the Great BartCop, "When will the President come to work?"

[whatchamacallit]

93. This is exactly right

I can't feel him cuz he's not really there.

[Romulox]

97. Um, you remember when they were going to tax the Bankster bonuses? We saw passion *then*.

:shrug:

[Hawkowl]

99. Then....nothing

Pretty much sums up his presidency. As I heard one commentator summing up Obama: "Jimmy Carter on steroids". He only wants to be liked by everyone.

[QC]

102. Kick!

[disillusioned73]

103. Sadly, I have to rec..

& kick:dem:

[karynnj]

109. This is an extremely badly written piece of analysis

First, I can only imagine that his Freshman composition professor filed.

Second, it is simply piling on and in many cases ignores the reality of how legislation is done. Whether Westen things so or not, there were reasons that there were tax cuts in the stimulus bill - NOTHING woul have passed otherwise. Not to mention he buys the RW lie that the stimulus was not successful. I was unimpressed when he referenced here on political strategy prior to 2008 - and I am still unimpressed.

Third, the president was out there often and he did show passion.

[SeattleGirl]

159. Surely you're not saying that this "analysis" doesn't hold water?

After all, he probably saw Obama on the teevee machine a couple of times, so that gives him a leg up on everybody! :sarcasm:

[karynnj]

163. Here is his "insightful" comments from fall 2008

His theory is completely simplistic - and got almost everything wrong on how people responded to the 4 people on the 2008 ticker. It also ignores the fact that the media changed greatly since the mid 1990s. Sarah Palin (or Christine O'Donnell are NOT one of us and it is ridiculous to argue (as someone did in Nixon's years) that people who are mediocre should be represented on the SC - or in the Presidency. We do not need to buy that Republican line.)

By 2004, it did not respond as it always had in the past. It was not that Kerry did not get an image of himself - for a life in public service stating in the NAVY - it was that the Republicans were aided and abetted by the media in countering it with lies.

[bbgrunt]

112. wow. What's really scary is his concluding paragraph:

"I don't honestly know what this president believes. But I believe if he doesn't figure it out soon, start enunciating it, and start fighting for it, he's not only going to give American families hungry for security a series of half-loaves where they could have had full ones, but he's going to set back the Democratic Party and the progressive movement by decades, because the average American is coming to believe that what they're seeing right now is "liberalism," and they don't like what they see. I don't, either."

[Jakes Progress]

119. Ouch. Just ouch. Damn but he nails it.

[unblock]

120. 5,297 words is "succinct"?

:shrug:

[Divine Discontent]

149. I'd hate to see "rambling". ha!

[fascisthunter]

122. what pisses me off is that the Progressive and Liberal have been co-opted

so anything Obama does, is now on the left instead of the corporate centrist wing of our party. Don't for a secound think they don't know this...

Here's a clue for anyone who didn't know this: Obama is not a progressive or a liberal... thank you in advance.

[JoePhilly]

125. This PhD in Psych calls BS.

This is TRIPE.

First, a true professional psychologist would not use his professional standing to write an OPINION piece about politics, unless he had an agenda. This guy CLEARLY has one.

One of the easy ways to identify this is to simply read the article (which I did) and try to find references to well established psychological constructs. Reading this article, you don't find any.

So the author references his professional credentials, and then includes no specific perspective which leverages that "expertise".

In fact, this "expert" makes a mistake that future psychologists are taught to avoid in a 101 level class. "You can't analyze yourself, or use YOUR feelings to describe what other do feel, or should feel. To be objective, the psychologist needs to separates their own personal bias, and feelings from the subject to which they turn their focus.

This clown not only misses this critical point, he goes on to ascribe HIS FEELINGS to others. Beyond that, he also decides that HIS leadership model is the correct one.

Weakest still ... this clown tries to "analyze" some one he has never met or spoken to. No professional psychologist with ethics would do the same.

This guy is an embarrassment to the profession.

[jaxx]

126. Well said.

This guy reminds me of the expert witness the lawyers drag out when nobody else will touch a case. They'll say anything for a buck.

[kath]

131. NOWHERE in the article does the author probe the Prez's psyche, nor he discuss

any sort of psychological diagnosis or anything remotely approaching it. It's an OPINION piece -- WHERE exactly do you see him trying to "analyze" anyone? Did you read the piece? He says the same things about Obama that other columnists and people at DU say *all the time*. The only place I see him even *remotely* put on his "psychologist hat" is where he says "I say this as someone who has spent much of the last three years studying what moves voters in the middle, the Undecideds who will hear whichever side speaks to them with moral clarity." (he's written a book) That's it.
Listing his occupation at the top of the piece (we see such a description at the top or bottom of many, if not most, op-ed columns or even letters-to-the-editor) does NOT mean that he is "using his professional standing to write an OPINION piece about politics".

You're not the only one here implying that he was "analyzing" the President - three or four others have also made this error, and I felt it was time for you and them to be called on it.
Should psychologists, or economists, or physicians, or biologists, or lawyers, or anyone else not be allowed to write opinion pieces? Should one's profession never be included with any opinion piece or LTTE she or he writes?

[JoePhilly]

138. Where in the article does he SEPARATE his title from his opinion????

This is a very important question for a "professional psychologist" writing an OPINION PIECE.

Look at the title of the article, and then, the description of the author. He is described as "Psychologist and neuroscientist; Emory University Professor".

The point of including that description is to ensure that the reader knows that the writer is an EXPERT.

Now ... if Westen is a TRUE expert giving is opinion, then he would SAY THAT in the first paragraph. He would have no need to rely on his credentials to give his OPINION greater import that the OPINION of anyone else.

But he does not do that.

I AM A PHD in PSYCHOLOGY ... and when I post here on DU, or anywhere else, I do not mention that as a way to give my OPINION more weight than YOUR opinion. And ... if I do mention my credentials, I do so, NOT to give my OPINION greater weight then those of others.

If this guy was a real professional, he would, at the start, indicate that the views he puts forth are HIS OPINIONS, and should not get extra weight because of his credentials.

He does not do that. He appears to be making an argument based on his personal OPINION, and using his credentials as an "objective scientist" (which is what true psychologists are) to give his personal view greater weight.

It's BS.

[JuniperLea]

156. In this particular instance...

I will gladly state without reservation that your learned opinion does indeed outweigh the opinions of most of the rest of us here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

162. Publications very often describe someone writing an opinion piece

He does not, anywhere in the article, mention psychology, psychiatry or neuroscience. It's the Huffington Post site editors who do. He is not "using his credentials" as a psychologist at all.

In fact, when he does talk about what he does as work, it's the political consultancy side:

During the election I tested messages on just this issue, and a strong progressive message beat the most convincing anti-immigrant message we could throw at it by 10 points. Two weeks ago, I tested messages on just this issue as it applied to health care, and that margin had doubled.

[kath]

167. Thanks muriel - even local newspapers do this with LTTEs -- "Joe Schmoe is on the faculty at East

Bumfuck Univ., where he teaches English. He lives in West Bumfuck".

[JoePhilly]

176. Re-read what I wrote ...

Its FINE for the article to give his credentials. Its his responsibility to point out that, in this article, he is not speaking as an "objective professional", but as a citizen with an OPINION.

He doesn't do that.

I should mention that this approach ... "argument from authority" is not new. And here's how it plays out ... people read his title, and then go on to push his credentials as if they make his OPINION more valid ... just as the OP did .... here is the OP's title ...

Wow. Succinct and unflinching Op-Ed by an Emory psychologist on Obama.

See how that works?

[kath]

164. Check out the listing of blog articles on Huffington Post - nearly all of them list the writer's

oocupation, authorship of books, etc.

I ask again. of you and others -- please point out anywhere where he is "analyzing" Obama from a psychological standpoint? It's just not there.
This article is nothing like "Bush on the Couch", which did attempt to look into Bush's past to figure out why he does what he does.

[ampad]

133. Thank you for the insight

I was hoping a PhD would weight in. Some people (including the author) could use a class in basic research design and ethics. As you said this is an embarrassment to the profession. I was dinged for allowing my personal feelings to get in the way of a basic research project during my last year of college. This is something that you learn from the beginning. Granted I did not or could not portray myself as a psychologist as this author did.

This opinion piece should of been written without his title ever being displayed. The author would not of displayed his position if he did not think that it was relevant. As far as I am concerned as soon as he displayed his title he embarked on analyzing. This is no different than the freak who tried to diagnose Terry Shavio by watching a video of her. I am sure the APA would not be happy.

[JoePhilly]

139. I actually don;t mind his position being displayed ... but ...

In the text, he should be SCREAMING that this is his OPINION, and NOT an objective assessment.

I'd be fine with that. Professional in many fields have OPINIONS. And they can and should voice those ... but when you do, as a SCIENTIST you MUST, MUST, MUST ... make the separation.

As an "expert" there are things that I KNOW. And I can back those up with OBJECTIVE measurements. And as an "expert" I also have opinions. If I could back those up with OBJECTIVE measures, they'd stop being my opinions, and become things I know.

This author seems to be confusing the two. His opinions are facts. Which exposes his agenda.

[grantcart]

145. translation

"This guy is an embarrassment to the profession" translated into DU is "it doesn't matter how pretentious, unfounded, academically or professionally suspect it is if it undermines President Obama then it is gold given by a King".

[HughMoran]

153. Imagine that

Another imbecile with a title who thinks he's a "pundit".

:eyes:

[JuniperLea]

155. Thanks for this!

I was beginning to think of this opinion piece with the reminiscence of a certain diagnosis of one Terri Schiavo!

[Scurrilous]

160. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[COLGATE4]

130. K&R. The presience of this article is outstanding. Too bad he

really hits the nail on the head.

[11 Bravo]

136. I'm big on psychoanalysis as offered by people who have never been within shouting distance ...

of the subject of their examination.

[stevenleser]

154. Yes, not only as scientific as reading tea leaves, it is unethical n/t

[SeattleGirl]

157. Yeah, that just smacks of "professionalism" to me!

But for some reason, I don't feel like salivating over him OR his article.

As someone with a degree in psychology, I find this kind of this irresponsible. If you want to psychoanalyze someone, you'd better leave your own feelings at the door, which this person did not. And it helps too, if you actually spend some time one-on-one with them.

Why people are drooling over this piece is just beyond me.

[kath]

166. Did YOU read the article?

See above posts - this piece does NOT attempt to psychoanalyze the Prez. Not one freakin' bit.

[davidwparker]

137. K&R

[MichiganVote]

141. Rubbish

[Greyhound]

170. Watching this thread over the last couple days has served as a microcosm

of the devolution of DU. The more populist sentiments are attacked w/o consequence while the sustaining arguments are, first diverted by the usual suspects, then deleted.

In the end none of this matters of course, but if any had the chance to watch it develop, it could be useful to any that really don't understand what happened last Tuesday.

Another :kick:

[BlueIris]

171. Le sigh.

I think the sustaining arguments are being deleted because in some cases, people can't bother to post them in a civil manner.

[Greyhound]

180. That is the nominal reason given I'm sure.

However I did read them and with few exceptions they were more civil than the Olbermann Wars.
:kick:

[WinkyDink]

175. So "Bush on the Couch" is meaningless drivel, also? I DON'T THINK SO. The field is LEGITIMATE.

http://www.psychobiography.com/whatis.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychobiography

http://books.google.com/books?id=BFgcTjzqxrAC&dq=psychobiography&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=WIraTJDRH4O78gbY0Nj5CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13&ved=0CGcQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Edweird]

179. Yes. I predicted it a while back. I believe the problem is that Obama IS fighting for what he wants.

He just happens to want schools privatized, individual mandates, corporations to bailed out while the citizens suffer, and an attack on social security. That's the only logical conclusion as far as I can see.

[meow mix]

183. K&r

sums up my feelings pretty well, good read